Aas 11-509 Artemis Lunar Orbit Insertion and Science Orbit Design Through 2013

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Aas 11-509 Artemis Lunar Orbit Insertion and Science Orbit Design Through 2013 AAS 11-509 ARTEMIS LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION AND SCIENCE ORBIT DESIGN THROUGH 2013 Stephen B. Broschart,∗ Theodore H. Sweetser,y Vassilis Angelopoulos,z David C. Folta,x and Mark A. Woodard{ As of late-July 2011, the ARTEMIS mission is transferring two spacecraft from Lissajous orbits around Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 into highly-eccentric lunar science orbits. This paper presents the trajectory design for the transfer from Lissajous orbit to lunar orbit in- sertion, the period reduction maneuvers, and the science orbits through 2013. The design accommodates large perturbations from Earth’s gravity and restrictive spacecraft capabili- ties to enable opportunities for a range of heliophysics and planetary science measurements. The process used to design the highly-eccentric ARTEMIS science orbits is outlined. The approach may inform the design of future eccentric orbiter missions at planetary moons. INTRODUCTION The Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moons Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) mission is currently operating two spacecraft in lunar orbit under funding from the Heliophysics and Planetary Science Divisions with NASA’s Science Missions Directorate. ARTEMIS is an extension to the successful Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission [1] that has relocated two of the THEMIS spacecraft from Earth orbit to the Moon [2, 3, 4]. ARTEMIS plans to conduct a variety of scientific studies at the Moon using the on-board particle and fields instrument package [5, 6]. The final portion of the ARTEMIS transfers involves moving the two ARTEMIS spacecraft, known as P1 and P2, from Lissajous orbits around the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 (EML1) to long-lived, eccentric lunar science orbits with periods of roughly 28 hr. This paper presents the design of this final transition and discusses how the various science objectives were achieved by the transfer and lunar orbit designs. As of this writing, the P1 and P2 spacecraft have both successfully performed their lunar orbit insertion (LOI) maneuvers (on June 27 and July 17, 2011, respectively). Both spacecraft are currently undergoing a series of period reduction maneuvers (PRMs) en route to their final science orbits. Many aspects of the transfer from Lissajous to the science orbits contribute to the novelty of the design. Firstly, the ARTEMIS probes have been the first spacecraft to fly Lissajous orbit near the Earth-Moon La- grange points and thus, they are the first to approach a traditional lunar orbit from this location. Second, the ARTEMIS probes plan to routinely operate in the most eccentric lunar science orbits of any mission to date∗. These orbits are strongly perturbed by the Earth’s gravity, which makes for interesting three-body dynamics ∗Mission Design Engineer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109. yMission Design Engineer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109. zDistinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 91109 and Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095. xAerospace Engineer, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. {Aerospace Engineer, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, 20771. c Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. ∗The SMART-1 spacecraft transitioned a more eccentric orbit upon initial capture at the Moon en route to a less eccentric operational orbit [7]. 1 that are more typically considered in the context of outer planet moon orbiters. Further, ARTEMIS plans a number of different science investigations while in lunar orbit [5, 6], many of which have particular trajectory implications that must be satisfied. Finally, P1 and P2 were built as low-cost Earth orbiters; the spacecraft capabilities, particularly in the area of available thrust and ∆V , are less robust than they may have been if the lunar mission had been planned before launch. The paper begins with a review of the scientific objectives for ARTEMIS and the implications for trajec- tory design. Next, the lunar orbit dynamics are discussed, along with the qualitative insights and simplifica- tions found to be helpful in the design process. A discussion follows on the design limitations arising from spacecraft and mission constraints. The baseline design solutions for P1 and P2 are then presented, with a discussion of the methodology used to approach key design hurdles. The achieved science opportunities are then shown, confirming that the goals and constraints of the mission are met by the design. LUNAR ORBIT PHASE SCIENCE OBJECTIVES Because ARTEMIS is both a heliophysics and a planetary science mission, a wide range of science obser- vations are planned for during the lunar orbit phase [6], including: • 3-D mapping of the lunar wake induced by the solar wind at a range of downstream distances; • Measurements of selected lunar crustal magnetic anomalies; • Measurements of the lunar exosphere and surface charging; • Coordinated measurements with NASA’s forthcoming Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Ex- plorer (LADEE) to characterize the near-terminator exosphere. It is desired to get as many measurements as possible in each area so as to maximize spatial resolution, capture variations as the Moon moves in and out of the Earth’s magnetotail, and observe under varying solar wind conditions. By having two ARTEMIS spacecraft in orbit, simultaneous two-point measurements can be achieved at a range of spatial separations, calibration can be conducted, and an increased data volume is obtained. The above science measurement objectives directly drive the design of the lunar science orbit and approach from Lissajous. To achieve the desired lunar wake measurements, the two spacecraft should be in highly eccentric orbits that precess at rates different from each other and from the Sun direction. The mission duration should be long enough so that a full range of measurement altitudes and relative orientations can be achieved. To measure the crustal magnetic anomalies, periapsis altitudes must be less than 50 km and in the vicinity of the anomaly. Each anomaly dictates a minimum orbit inclination required to achieve this. Measurements of the lunar exosphere require a range of altitudes and orientations with respect to the Sun. To coordinate near-terminator exosphere investigations with LADEE, an ARTEMIS spacecraft must be below 200 km within 30 deg of the dawn terminator at least once during the 3-month LADEE science mission scheduled for 100 days between July 2013 and March 2014 (depending on launch date) [8, 9]. Finally, to maximize the quantity of all measurements, the orbits should have long-term stability. SPACECRAFT DYNAMICS Dynamic Model for Trajectory Integration The above discussion on the orbit necessary to achieve the ARTEMIS science goals necessitates a lunar orbit with a large semi-major axis and a high eccentricity. The following accelerations on the spacecraft are used to accurately integrate the spacecraft dynamics in the design process: • Lunar pointmass potential; • Earth pointmass potential; 2 • Lunar harmonic gravity terms (up to 20th degree and order); • Solar pointmass potential; • Solar radiation pressure (SRP, spherical spacecraft model); • Spacecraft thrust. Relativistic accelerations and a higher-order gravity terms for the Earth are found to be small enough to ne- glect in the modeling. Figure 1 shows the relative magnitude of the various natural accelerations on the P2 spacecraft during its transfer from Lissajous through the science orbit (the accelerations on P1 are qualita- tively similar). The magnitude of the first three accelerations listed above oscillate over several orders of magnitude as the spacecraft moves between periapsis and apoapsis (on the order of once per day). The Earth gravity magnitude also oscillates twice per lunar month as the spacecraft line of apsides rotates through 360 deg with respect to the Earth-Moon direction. The relative solar gravity oscillates every 9:5 or 17 months (P1 and P2, respectively), primarily driven by variation in the distance between the spacecraft and the Earth. The SRP acceleration oscillates annually, primarily driven by the range between the Earth and Sun. Figure 1. Magnitude of accelerations on the P2 spacecraft (relative to the Moon) from four days before LOI through the end of the PRM sequence. The logarithmic scale for the y-axis on both plots is identical; they are separated for clarity. Qualitative Dynamical Insights Figure 1 shows that the lunar and terrestrial pointmass gravities are the dominant accelerations in the dynamics. The non-Keplerian motion of the ARTEMIS probes while in lunar orbit can be qualitatively understood by considering only these two accelerations in the context of the Hill three-body problem (H3BP)y [10]. Such simplification allows for analytical expressions of the dynamics to inform the design process. When considered in this light, the ARTEMIS dynamics can be understood much the same ways that Jupiter and Saturn moon orbiters have been in the literature [11, 12, 13]. Firstly, the short-period influence of the Earth’s gravity as a function of orbit orientation should be under- stood. When considering the Moon-centered H3BP dynamics in a frame that rotates so the Earth is always yThe H3BP relies on the assumptions that the second primary is much smaller than the first and that spacecraft
Recommended publications
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
    DRAFT version: 7/15/2011 11:04 AM http://www.alyeskaresort.com AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference July 31 ‐ August 4, 2011 Girdwood, Alaska AAS General Chair AIAA General Chair Ryan P. Russell William Todd Cerven Georgia Institute of Technology The Aerospace Corporation AAS Technical Chair AIAA Technical Chair Hanspeter Schaub Brian C. Gunter University of Colorado Delft University of Technology DRAFT version: 7/15/2011 11:04 AM http://www.alyeskaresort.com Cover images: Top right: Conference Location: Aleyska Resort in Girdwood Alaska. Middle left: Cassini looking back at an eclipsed Saturn, Astronomy picture of the day 2006 Oct 16, credit CICLOPS, JPL, ESA, NASA; Middle right: Shuttle shadow in the sunset (in honor of the end of the Shuttle Era), Astronomy picture of the day 2010 February 16, credit: Expedition 22 Crew, NASA. Bottom right: Comet Hartley 2 Flyby, Astronomy picture of the day 2010 Nov 5, Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, UMD, EPOXI Mission DRAFT version: 7/15/2011 11:04 AM http://www.alyeskaresort.com Table of Contents Registration ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Schedule of Events ................................................................................................................................... 6 Conference Center Layout ........................................................................................................................ 7 Conference Location: The Hotel Alyeska ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Propulsion System Scaling for Asteroid Capture-And-Return Missions
    Electric propulsion system scaling for asteroid capture-and-return missions Justin M. Little⇤ and Edgar Y. Choueiri† Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544 The requirements for an electric propulsion system needed to maximize the return mass of asteroid capture-and-return (ACR) missions are investigated in detail. An analytical model is presented for the mission time and mass balance of an ACR mission based on the propellant requirements of each mission phase. Edelbaum’s approximation is used for the Earth-escape phase. The asteroid rendezvous and return phases of the mission are modeled as a low-thrust optimal control problem with a lunar assist. The numerical solution to this problem is used to derive scaling laws for the propellant requirements based on the maneuver time, asteroid orbit, and propulsion system parameters. Constraining the rendezvous and return phases by the synodic period of the target asteroid, a semi- empirical equation is obtained for the optimum specific impulse and power supply. It was found analytically that the optimum power supply is one such that the mass of the propulsion system and power supply are approximately equal to the total mass of propellant used during the entire mission. Finally, it is shown that ACR missions, in general, are optimized using propulsion systems capable of processing 100 kW – 1 MW of power with specific impulses in the range 5,000 – 10,000 s, and have the potential to return asteroids on the order of 103 104 tons. − Nomenclature
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamical Analysis of Rendezvous and Docking with Very Large Space Infrastructures in Non-Keplerian Orbits
    DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING WITH VERY LARGE SPACE INFRASTRUCTURES IN NON-KEPLERIAN ORBITS Andrea Colagrossi ∗, Michele` Lavagna y, Simone Flavio Rafano Carna` z Politecnico di Milano Department of Aerospace Science and Technology Via La Masa 34 – 20156 Milan (MI) – Italy ABSTRACT the whole mission scenario is the so called Evolvable Deep Space Habitat: a modular space station in lunar vicinity. A space station in the vicinity of the Moon can be exploited At the current level of study, the optimum location for as a gateway for future human and robotic exploration of the space infrastructure of this kind has not yet been determined, Solar System. The natural location for a space system of this but a favorable solution can be about one of the Earth-Moon kind is about one of the Earth-Moon libration points. libration points, such as in a EML2 (Earth-Moon Lagrangian The study addresses the dynamics during rendezvous and Point no 2) Halo orbit. Moreover, the final configuration of docking operations with a very large space infrastructure in a the entire system is still to be defined, but it is already clear EML2 Halo orbit. The model takes into account the coupling that in order to assemble the structure several rendezvous and effects between the orbital and the attitude motion in a Circular docking activities will be carried out, many of which to be Restricted Three-Body Problem environment. The flexibility completely automated. of the system is included, and the interaction between the Unfortunately, the current knowledge about rendezvous in modes of the structure and those related with the orbital motion cis-lunar orbits is minimal and it is usually limited to point- is investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Interplanetary Superhighway?
    What is the InterPlanetary Suppgyerhighway? Kathleen Howell Purdue University Lo and Ross Trajectory Key Space Technology Mission-Enabling Technology Not All Technology is hardware! The InterPlanetary Superhighway (IPS) • LELow Energy ObitfSOrbits for Space Mi Miissions • InterPlanetary Superhighway—“a vast network of winding tunnels in space” that connects the Sun , the planets, their moons, AND many other destinations • Systematic mapping properly known as InterPlanetary Transport Network Simó, Gómez, Masdemont / Lo, Howell, Barden / Howell, Folta / Lo, Ross / Koon, Lo, Marsden, Ross / Marchand, Howell, Lo / Scheeres, Villac/ ……. Originates with Poincaré (1892) Applications to wide range of fields Different View of Problems in N-Bodies • Much more than Kepler and Newton imagined • Computationally challenging Poincaré (1854-1912) “Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things” Jules Henri Poincaré NBP Play 3BP Wang 2BP New Era in Celestial Mechanics Pioneering Work: Numerical Exploration by Hand (Breakwell, Farquhar and Dunham) Current Libration Point Missions Goddard Space Flight Center • z WIND SOHO ACE MAPGENESIS NGST Courtesy of D. Folta, GSFC Multi-Body Problem Orbit propagated for 4 conic periods: • Change our perspective 4*19 days = 75.7 days Earth Earth Sun To Sun Inertial View RotatingRotating View View Inertial View (Ro ta tes w ith two b odi es) Aeronautics and Astronautics Multi-Body Problem • Change our perspective • Effects of added gravity fields Earth Earth TSTo Sun Rotating View Inertial View Equilibrium
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Multi-Body Dynamical Environments: the ARTEMIS Transfer Trajectory Design
    Paper ID: 7461 61st International Astronautical Congress 2010 Applications of Multi-Body Dynamical Environments: The ARTEMIS Transfer Trajectory Design ASTRODYNAMICS SYMPOSIUM (CI) Mission Design, Operations and Optimization (2) (9) Mr. David C. Folta and Mr. Mark Woodard National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States, david.c.folta<@nasa.gov Prof. Kathleen Howell, Chris Patterson, Wayne Schlei Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States, [email protected] Abstract The application of forces in multi-body dynamical environments to pennit the transfer of spacecraft from Earth orbit to Sun-Earth weak stability regions and then return to the Earth-Moon libration (L1 and L2) orbits has been successfully accomplished for the first time. This demonstrated transfer is a positive step in the realization of a design process that can be used to transfer spacecraft with minimal Delta-V expenditures. Initialized using gravity assists to overcome fuel constraints; the ARTEMIS trajectory design has successfully placed two spacecraft into Earth­ Moon libration orbits by means of these applications. INTRODUCTION The exploitation of multi-body dynamical environments to pennit the transfer of spacecraft from Earth to Sun-Earth weak stability regions and then return to the Earth-Moon libration (L 1 and L2) orbits has been successfully accomplished. This demonstrated transfer is a positive step in the realization of a design process that can be used to transfer spacecraft with minimal Delta-Velocity (L.\V) expenditure. Initialized using gravity assists to overcome fuel constraints, the Acceleration Reconnection and Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon's Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) mission design has successfully placed two spacecraft into Earth-Moon libration orbits by means of this application of forces from multiple gravity fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Trajectories in a Sun, Earth, and Moon Ephemeris Model
    SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORIES IN A SUN, EARTH, AND MOON EPHEMERIS MODEL A Project Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering by Romalyn Mirador i ABSTRACT SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORIES IN A SUN, EARTH, AND MOON EPHEMERIS MODEL by Romalyn Mirador This project details the process of building, testing, and comparing a tool to simulate spacecraft trajectories using an ephemeris N-Body model. Different trajectory models and methods of solving are reviewed. Using the Ephemeris positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun, a code for higher-fidelity numerical modeling is built and tested using MATLAB. Resulting trajectories are compared to NASA’s GMAT for accuracy. Results reveal that the N-Body model can be used to find complex trajectories but would need to include other perturbations like gravity harmonics to model more accurate trajectories. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my family and friends for their continuous encouragement and support throughout all these years. A special thank you to my advisor, Dr. Capdevila, and my friend, Dhathri, for mentoring me as I work on this project. The knowledge and guidance from the both of you has helped me tremendously and I appreciate everything you both have done to help me get here. ii Table of Contents List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Download Paper
    Cis-Lunar Autonomous Navigation via Implementation of Optical Asteroid Angle-Only Measurements Mark B. Hinga, Ph.D., P.E. ∗ Autonomous cis- or trans-Lunar spacecraft navigation is critical to mission success as communication to ground stations and access to GPS signals could be lost. However, if the satellite has a camera of sufficient qual- ity, line of sight (unit vector) measurements can be made to known solar system bodies to provide observations which enable autonomous estimation of position and velocity of the spacecraft, that can be telemetered to those interested space based or ground based consumers. An improved Gaussian-Initial Orbit Determination (IOD) algorithm, based on the exact values of the f and g series (free of the 8th order polynomial and range guessing), for spacecraft state estimation, is presented here and exercised in the inertial coordinate frame (2-Body Prob- lem) to provide an initial guess for the Batch IOD that is performed in the Circular Restricted Three Body Problem (CRTBP) reference frame, which ultimately serves to initialize a CRTBP Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) navigator that collects angle only measurements to a known Asteroid 2014 EC (flying by the Earth) to sequentially estimate position and velocity of an observer spacecraft flying on an APOLLO-like trajectory to the Moon. With the addition of simulating/expressing the accelerations that would be sensed in the IMU plat- form frame due to delta velocities caused by either perturbations or corrective guidance maneuvers, this three phase algorithm is able to autonomously track the spacecraft state on its journey to the Moon while observing the motion of the Asteroid.
    [Show full text]
  • Cislunar Tether Transport System
    FINAL REPORT on NIAC Phase I Contract 07600-011 with NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, Universities Space Research Association CISLUNAR TETHER TRANSPORT SYSTEM Report submitted by: TETHERS UNLIMITED, INC. 8114 Pebble Ct., Clinton WA 98236-9240 Phone: (206) 306-0400 Fax: -0537 email: [email protected] www.tethers.com Report dated: May 30, 1999 Period of Performance: November 1, 1998 to April 30, 1999 PROJECT SUMMARY PHASE I CONTRACT NUMBER NIAC-07600-011 TITLE OF PROJECT CISLUNAR TETHER TRANSPORT SYSTEM NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (Firm Name, Mail Address, City/State/Zip Tethers Unlimited, Inc. 8114 Pebble Ct., Clinton WA 98236-9240 [email protected] PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Robert P. Hoyt, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The Phase I effort developed a design for a space systems architecture for repeatedly transporting payloads between low Earth orbit and the surface of the moon without significant use of propellant. This architecture consists of one rotating tether in elliptical, equatorial Earth orbit and a second rotating tether in a circular low lunar orbit. The Earth-orbit tether picks up a payload from a circular low Earth orbit and tosses it into a minimal-energy lunar transfer orbit. When the payload arrives at the Moon, the lunar tether catches it and deposits it on the surface of the Moon. Simultaneously, the lunar tether picks up a lunar payload to be sent down to the Earth orbit tether. By transporting equal masses to and from the Moon, the orbital energy and momentum of the system can be conserved, eliminating the need for transfer propellant. Using currently available high-strength tether materials, this system could be built with a total mass of less than 28 times the mass of the payloads it can transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Libration Orbit Mission Design: Applications of Numerical and Dynamical Methods
    Libration Orbit Mission Design: Applications Of Numerical And Dynamical Methods David Folta and Mark Beckman NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center Libration Point Orbits and Applications June 10-14, 2002, Girona, Spain Agenda • NASA Enterprises • Challenges • Historical and future missions • Libration mission design via numerical and dynamical methods • Applications ¾Direct transfer ¾Low thrust ¾Servicing ¾Formations: Constellation-X and Stellar Imager ¾Conceptual studies • Improved tools • Conclusions NASA Themes and Libration Orbits NASA Enterprises of Space Sciences (SSE) and Earth Sciences (ESE) are a combination of several programs and themes SSE ESE SEU SEC Origins • Recent SEC missions include ACE, SOHO, and the L1/L2 WIND mission. The Living With a Star (LWS) portion of SEC may require libration orbits at the L1 and L3 Sun-Earth libration points. • Structure and Evolution of the Universe (SEU) currently has MAP and the future Micro Arc-second X-ray Imaging Mission (MAXIM) and Constellation-X missions. •Space Sciences’ Origins libration missions are the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) and The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF). • The Triana mission is the lone ESE mission not orbiting the Earth. • A major challenge is formation flying components of Constellation-X, MAXIM, TPF, and Stellar Imager. Future Libration Mission SSE and ESE Challenges ¾ Orbit ¾Biased orbits when using large sun shades ¾Shadow restrictions ¾Very small amplitudes ¾Reorientation to different planes and Lissajous classes ¾Rendezvous and formation flying ¾Low
    [Show full text]
  • Stationkeeping in and Design of Transfer Between Earth-Moon L1,2 Orbits: ARTEMIS Mission Results
    Goddard Space Flight Center Stationkeeping in and Design of Transfer Between Earth-Moon L1,2 Orbits: ARTEMIS Mission Results Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Dave Folta Goddard Space Flight Center February, 23, 2011 Agenda Goddard Space Flight Center • General Libration Orbit Background • Stationkeeping Methods • The ARTEMIS Mission Results and Operations • Stationkeeping Observations • Comparison to Other Lunar Orbits • Summary Libration Orbit Dynamics Goddard Space Flight Center Where Are They? What Are They?? Collinear Points: L1, L2, L3 (unstable) Equilibrium or libration points represent Triangular Points: L4, L5 (stable) singularities in the equations of motion where velocity and acceleration components are zero and the forces are balanced Viewed in the rotating frame: centrifugal L4 (Coriolis-Type) force balances with gravitational forces of the two primaries 1 a.u. 1 a.u. Libration points are in plane with no Z component. Orbits are mapped to a rotating L3 Sun L1 L2 frame where there are no time dependent forces 0.01 a.u. A system of interest involves the Sun (m1), Earth/Moon System the Earth-Moon system (m2) and the spacecraft m3 L1 and L2 At a distance of 1.5 million km L5 L4 and L5 At a distance of 150. million km Solar Rotating Coordinates Ecliptic Plane Projection Rotating Coordinate Frames Goddard Space Flight Center Sun-Earth & Earth-Moon • X is towards smaller body (sun to Earth) • Y is along smaller body velocity • Z is out of Ecliptic plane • Co-linear Unstable locations at L1, L2, and ‘L3’ • Stable locations
    [Show full text]
  • SERVICING and DEPLOYMENT of NATIONAL RESOURCES in SUN-EARTH LIBRATION POINT ORBITS 53Th International Astronautical Congress
    SERVICING AND DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES IN SUN-EARTH LIBRATION POINT ORBITS D. C. Folta, M. Beckman, S. J. Leete, G. C. Marr, M. Mesarch, and S. Cooley NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, USA 53th International Astronautical Congress The World Space Congress - 2002 10-3 9 Oct 2002 I Houston, Texas For permission to copy or republish, contact the International Astronautical Federation, 3-5 Rue Mario-Nikis, 75015 Paris, France SERVICING AND DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES IN SUN-EARTH LIBRATION POINT ORBITS D. C. Folta, M. Beckman, G. C. Marr, M. Mesarch, S. Cooley Flight Dynamics Analysis Branch NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA dfolta@;gsfc.nasa.gov S. J. Leete Space Science Missions Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA Abstract Spacecraft travel between the Sun-Earth system, the Earth-Moon system, and beyond has received extensive attention recently. The existence of a connection between unstable regions enables mission designers to envision scenarios of multiple spacecraft traveling cheaply from system to system, rendezvousing, servicing, and refbeling along the way. This paper presents examples of transfers between the Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon systems using a true ephemeris and perturbation model. It shows the AV costs associated with these transfers, including the costs to reach the staging region from the Earth. It explores both impulsive and low thrust transfer trajectories. Additionally, analysis that looks specifically at the use of nuclear power in libration point orbits and the issues associated with them such as inadvertent Earth return is addressed. Statistical analysis of Earth returns and the design of biased orbits to prevent any possible return are discussed.
    [Show full text]